[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Debasis Rana vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 20 April, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                 CRLMC No.1085 of 2026

                                  Debasis Rana               ....               Petitioner(s)
                                                               Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul, Adv.
                                                         -versus-
                                  State of Odisha & Anr.   ....            Opposite Party(s)
                                                                Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC
                                                                  Mr. Jaideep Subudhi, Adv.

                                        CORAM:
                                        HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
        Order No.                                         ORDER
           02.                                           20.04.2026
                                  1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In the present CRLMC, the Petitioner against whom the

allegation of assaulting the informant is made, has

prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding

initiated against him vide C.T. Case No.863 of 2024

arising out of Kharbelanagar P.S. Case No.225 dated

06.05.2024 pending before the Court of learned S.D.J.M,

Bhubaneswar.

3. Heard.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2/informant

in one tone submit that both the parties are ready for

amicable settlement of the dispute involved herein.

They also submit that the Petitioner was only present at Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Apr-2026 18:58:01 the time of occurrence and he is no way connected to

the offences alleged against him. A joint affidavit has

been filed to that effect. They, accordingly, pray for

allowing the prayer made in this CRLMC.

5. The relevant portions of the said joint affidavit filed by

both the parties are extracted hereunder:-

"xxx xxx xxx

1. That, the Opposite Party No.2/ Informant had lodged the FIR vide Kharbela Nagar P.S. Case No.225 dtd. 6.5.2024 corresponding to C.T. Case No.863 of 2024 now pending in the court of learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offences U/s.341,323,294,324, 34 of IPC.

2. That, the name of the present petitioner (Deponent No.1) was not specifically mentioned in the FIR and came to be reflected during the course of investigation and subsequently charge sheet was submitted against the present petitioner (Deponent No.1).

3. That as per the understanding of the Opposite Party No.2 (Deponent No.2), the petitioner was present at the spot but the Opposite Party No.2 does not wish to pursue the allegations against him

4. That, with the intervention of friends, family members and well wishers, we have voluntarily and amicably resolved the matter only in so far as it relates to the present petitioner without affecting the other accused.

5. That, the Opposite Party No.2 has no objection if the FIR and consequential criminal

proceedings are quashed only in respect of the

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication present petitioner (Deponent No.1) namely Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Apr-2026 18:58:01 Debasis Rana.

6. That, it is expressly clarified that this compromise is limited to the present petitioner alone, and the Opp.Party No.2 intends to pursue the case against the other accused persons in accordance with law.

7. That, we the deponents file this joint affidavit, for amicably settlement has been arrived between us at voluntarily without any coercion, threat, undue influence or pressure from any quarter.

8. That, we the deponents file this joint affidavit in support of the accompanying petition under section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section - 482 of Cr.P.C) for quashing of proceedings qua the present petitioner only in the interest of justice.

9. That the present affidavit shall not be construed as withdrawal of allegations in respect of any other accused persons except the present petitioner (Deponent No.1).

xxx xxx xxx"

6. This Court has considered the joint affidavit filed by

both parties and is conscious of the settled legal

position that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is distinct from the power of

compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C., and may be

invoked to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse

of the process of Court. At the same time, such power is

not to be exercised mechanically merely because the

parties have arrived at a settlement; the Court is

required to examine the nature and gravity of the

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Apr-2026 18:58:01 allegations, the real genesis of the dispute, the stage of

the proceeding, and whether, in view of the stand now

taken by the victim, the possibility of conviction has

become remote and continuation of the prosecution

would amount to futility or oppression.

7. In the present case, Opposite Party No.2 has joined the

Petitioner in filing a sworn affidavit and has

categorically stated that he does not wish to proceed

further with the criminal case qua the Petitioner only

and that the Petitioner is not involved in the alleged

occurrence. Thus, the Court is not proceeding on the

basis of a bare compromise alone, but on the

subsequent stand of the complainant himself, which

substantially erodes the factual substratum of the

prosecution. Having regard to the materials on record,

the stage of the case, and the unequivocal position

taken by the complainant, this Court is satisfied that the

possibility of a successful conviction is remote and

bleak, and that continuation of the impugned

proceeding would serve no useful purpose but would

instead amount to abuse of the process of law.

8. In light of the aforesaid, and applying the same to the

facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered

view that continuance of the impugned criminal

proceeding qua the present Petitioner would amount to

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Apr-2026 18:58:01

an abuse of the process of Court and would not

subserve the ends of justice.

9. In fact, in the case of Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika1 the

Supreme Court has held that even where an offence is

non-compoundable, quashing may still be justified, if

there is no realistic chance of conviction and

continuance is an empty formality. The Court held as

follows:

"It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other."

10.Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the

case of Manoj Sharma v. State2 wherein the Court held

as follows:

"It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa 1 Date: 21-Apr-2026 18:58:01 AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 499

(2008) 16 SCC 1

opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other."

11.Tested against the aforesaid principles and the facts of

the present case, this Court finds that allowing the

prosecution to continue would be futile and would

amount to an abuse of the process of law.

12.In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is

allowed. Accordingly, the F.I.R. in Kharbelanagar P.S.

Case No.225 dated 06.05.2024 relating to the present

Petitioner only is, hereby, quashed. Consequently, the

entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom, i.e., C.T.

Case No.863 of 2024 pending before the Court of

learned S.D.J.M, Bhubaneswar also relating to the

Petitioner only stands quashed.